New York Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger fired executive editor Jill Abramson after concluding that she had misled both him and chief executive Mark Thompson during her effort to hire a new co-managing editor, according to two sources with knowledge of the reason for her termination.

While several factors contributed to Sulzberger’s frustration with Abramson’s management of the newsroom, the sources, who are sympathetic to the Times management, said it was this incident that sealed her fate.

In conversations and emails, Abramson led both Sulzberger and Thompson to believe that she had consulted with other newsroom leaders about her decision to offer The Guardian’s Janine Gibson a job as co-managing editor, the sources said. Specifically, they said she implied that both Dean Baquet, her managing editor, and Janet Elder, the deputy managing editor responsible for newsroom resources and staff development, had been informed and were on board with the plan.

In fact, the sources said, Abramson had not consulted Baquet or Elder about her decision. Baquet did not learn about the offer until he was informed by Gibson herself at a lunch meeting — at which point the offer had already been made, the sources said. When Baquet voiced his frustration to Sulzberger the following day, the publisher concluded that his executive editor had misled him, and moved to fire her later that week.

Abramson did not respond to a request for an interview regarding her termination. Sulzberger, Thompson, Baquet and Gibson and Eileen Murphy, the Times’ chief spokesperson, all declined to comment.

The handling of Abramson’s exit from the paper was widely criticized as graceless: Abramson was not in the newsroom when Sulzberger announced the transfer of power to Baquet, and very little was said about her tenure. Howell Raines, who had been forced out eleven years earlier after overseeing a plagiarism scandal, was given gentler treatment.

In a statement issued Saturday, Sulzberger said that he fired Abramson after she proved unable to improve upon problems with her management style, which had been the subject of complaints by her colleagues.

“During her tenure, I heard repeatedly from her newsroom colleagues, women and men, about a series of issues, including arbitrary decision-making, a failure to consult and bring colleagues with her, inadequate communication and the public mistreatment of colleagues,” Sulzberger said. “I discussed these issues with Jill herself several times and warned her that, unless they were addressed, she risked losing the trust of both masthead and newsroom.”

“She acknowledged that there were issues and agreed to try to overcome them. We all wanted her to succeed,” he continued. “It became clear, however, that the gap was too big to bridge and ultimately I concluded that she had lost the support of her masthead colleagues and could not win it back.”

Sulzberger decided that “the gap was too big to bridge” when he concluded that Abramson had misled both him and Thompson about having consulted Baquet and Elder on the Gibson offer, the sources told POLITICO after the statement was released.

“The clear implication was that Dean and Janet had been told and endorsed the specifics of the plan for Janine,” a high-level Times source said. “They had not.”

Several Times sources, who agreed to speak on the condition of anonymity, added new details regarding Abramson’s ouster in background conversations and correspondence.

Abramson’s efforts to bring Gibson to the Times began in earnest several weeks ago. Gibson, who had recently been promoted to editor-in-chief of TheGuardian.com, was known for her digital savvy, which the Times viewed as crucial to its future success. Six weeks earlier, the Times had circulated an internal report warning that the paper had been too slow in adapting to digital and was at risk of falling behind online competitors, including The Guardian. “Our journalism advantage is shrinking,” the report stated.

Sulzberger and Thompson were both open to the idea of bringing Gibson on board. Thompson was even enthusiastic about it, as evidenced by an April 28 email to Abramson, first published in its entirety by The Daily Beast, in which Thompson even suggested Gibson might one day become the paper’s executive editor.

“40 mins on phone to Janine. She’s clearly very intrigued but anxious too,” he wrote in the email, adding: “I made the case that if she comes here, she will be, if anything, even more attractive as a candidate to them for that—and it also opens up the possibility of an executive editorship here or elsewhere in this country.”

“She reveres you and will need convincing that you’re going to sign up for some more years as Editor. I told her I was doing my best to persuade you that you should!” Thompson wrote. “The family case for staying in NY seems very strong. And she knows that the Times is unique. I’ll see her again when she’s in next week.”

Throughout this process, Abramson implied — both in direct conversations and in emails — that Baquet and other masthead leaders were aware of her decision to offer Gibson a co-managing editor position, and that they supported it, the sources said. But they said that Abramson had only mentioned to Baquet that she was interested in hiring Gibson to help boost the digital product — a plan Baquet did not seem enthusiastic about. She never told him that the offer had been made, nor did she tell him about the details of the position, according to the sources.

On Monday, May 5, Abramson sent Baquet to meet with Gibson over lunch. The sources said Baquet went into the lunch expecting a casual conversation exploring what Gibson might be able to contribute to the Times. Instead, Gibson told Baquet that she was extremely tempted by the offer to become co-managing editor.

Baquet played along as Gibson discussed the offer, not wanting to betray his ignorance, and the lunch ended amicably, the sources said. The next day, he went into Sulzberger’s office and, according to the sources, told him he could not work in an environment where such important decisions were being made without his knowledge.

Sulzberger was shocked: As far as he knew, Baquet was not only aware of the offer, but supported it. Sulzberger concluded that his executive editor had misled him.

In the wake of earlier complaints about her management style, Abramson had agreed to see a consultant to try and fix the problems. Sulzberger now believed that the problems could not be fixed.

Sulzberger met with Abramson that Friday, and fired her.

Since May 14, when Abramson’s exit became public, there have been competing narratives regarding the circumstances surrounding her termination. The Times initially said only that it was due to “an issue with management in the newsroom.” The New Yorker’s Ken Auletta has reported that there were several factors, including a) Abramson’s decision to hire a lawyer after learning that her salary was less than that of her male predecessors; b) her clashes with Thompson over what she saw as an intrusion of the business side into the newsroom; and c) the fact that Abramson had not consulted Baquet about making Gibson co-managing editor. Other reports have noted Abramson’s “brusque” management style, as well as an internal report that did not reflect well on the Times’ digital operation.

The confusion surrounding Abramson’s termination has allowed one viewpoint — that she was fired because she believed she had been paid less than her male counterparts and sought a greater salary — to become the dominant topic of conversation in the media. Dozens of articles and hours of roundtable discussions have been dedicated to the idea that Abramson, the Times’ first female executive editor, was pushed out because she had fought for equal pay. Even Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid announced that Abramson’s story was “a perfect example, if it’s true, of why we should pass paycheck equity.”

Meanwhile, many high-profile women have rallied around Abramson. On Saturday, the Journalism and Women Symposium released a statement, saying, “we support efforts to get equal pay for equal work and we support you.”

In Sulzberger’s statement Saturday, he sought to silence the talk of gender inequality at the Times.

“We are very proud of our record of gender equality at The New York Times. Many of our key leaders – both in the newsroom and on the business side – are women,” he said. “So too are many of our rising stars. They do not look for special treatment, but expect to be treated with the same respect as their male colleagues. For that reason they want to be judged fairly and objectively on their performance. That is what happened in the case of Jill.”